CAN THE
LEOPARD CHANGE HIS SPOTS?
Vladimir Moss
As we
witness the sad decline of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under
Metropolitan Lavr (ROCOR) into the embraces of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), it
may be worth reviewing some of the arguments that members of the MP (and now
even many members of the ROCOR) produce when challenged by members of the True
Russian Church. These arguments have varied considerably with time, and even
the MP would no doubt be ashamed of some of the arguments used in Soviet times,
when respect for both the Church and the State of the Soviet Union was much
higher than it is now. We shall not review these “old” arguments that even the
MP is now ashamed of, but shall turn to the “new” ones that have appeared since
the fall of communism – although sometimes they are simply the “old” ones
souped up in a more contemporary, subtler form.
1. The Leopard and
his spots.
One
argument employed by contemporary advocates of the MP, and even by the MP
Patriarch Alexis himself is that since the ROCOR was formed as a temporarily
autonomous organization until the fall of communism, it must now dissolve
itself insofar as communism fell nearly twelve years ago.
Two
questions are immediately elicited by this argument. First, has communism
really fallen? And secondly, even if it has fallen, why should the ROCOR
dissolve itself by joining the MP?
I
think we cannot deny that in 1991 communism fell in the particular statist form
that we know as the Soviet Union, or Soviet power. I think it is equally
undeniable that, at least since New Year’s Day, 2000, when KGB Colonel Putin
came to power, it has been in the process of being reconstructed.
The
evidence is manifold. KGB men – and let us recall Putin’s remark that “there is
no such thing as an ex-KGB man” - now occupy about 50% of the top governmental
posts in the Soviet – sorry, Russian - federation.[1]
The Soviet anthem has been re-established as the country’s national anthem; the
red flag has been restored to the armed forces. Putin has toasted Stalin, and
recently a new monument to Stalin was unveiled before a huge and enthusiastic
crowd in Ishim, Siberia (the see of ROCOR Bishop Evtikhy). It goes without
saying that Lenin’s mummy remains in its pagan mausoleum in Red Square. The
Chechen war continues to be waged in a hideously cruel, typically Soviet
manner. The media are once again coming under tight state control (witness the
way in which the independent NTV station was simply taken over). Even the
fledgling capitalist economy is under threat, and its stock market is plunging,
as a result of the recent imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the State’s seizure
of a large part of his company’s shares. So if there was a time for the ROCOR
to dissolve itself, it was in 1991, but not now.
In
any case, what is the ROCOR to do after its self-dissolution? The Fathers of
the ROCOR always spoke of an All-Russian Council assembling after the fall of
communism, which would sort out the problems of the Russian Church, elect a
canonical patriarch, etc. Obviously by such an All-Russian Council they did not
mean a Council just of the MP, but a Council in which the ROCOR and the
Catacomb Church would be included. In fact, probably a Council from which the
MP would be excluded, but to which individual hierarchs of the MP would
come to offer their repentance, on the model of the iconoclasts at the Seventh
Ecumenical Council. It is strange how little talk about such a Council there
has been since the supposed fall of communism…
Since no one seems to want to talk about an
all-Russian Council, let us consider some other alternatives. One is for the
ROCOR to proclaim itself the one and only Russian Orthodox Church. This was
actually suggested by Protopriest Lev Lebedev in the early 1990s, and appears
to have been adopted to some extent by the ROCOR at that time. However, this
was never done with much conviction (except when dealing with “dissidents”
inside Russia), and by the late 1990s the talk was rather of a “reunification”
of the different parts of the Russian Church – by which was meant the
reunification only of the ROCOR and the MP.
But
on what basis? On an equal basis, as if the ROCOR and the MP were both equally
legitimate parts of the Russian Church, two “sisters” of the same mother who
had just had a quarrel and were now prepared to forgive and forget? But this
“ecumenist” solution was not really acceptable to either side, since the MP
resolutely calls itself (and is believed by many even in the ROCOR to be) the
sole “Mother Church”, to which the ROCOR must “return” like a naughty child to
her parents, while the ROCOR believes that the MP must repent of certain
dogmatic and canonical errors – sergianism, ecumenism - before it can be
forgiven.
However, it is becoming more and more obvious – if it was ever really in
doubt – that the MP, at least in its upper reaches, will not and cannot repent.
At most it will bend a little to pressure coming, not from the ROCOR, but from
its own people, as in the case of its half-hearted and qualified canonization
of the Tsar-Martyr. The MP had a golden opportunity to repent in 1991, when the
chains imposed by its Soviet masters fell away, and there was a danger of a
large-scale exodus from the patriarchate. But it did not repent. And now, when
it is in a much stronger position than in 1991, and the ROCOR is much weaker,
it is less likely than ever to repent.
Not
only is it not repenting: like the dog of the proverb, it is returning to its
own vomit. Thus ecumenism continues unabated since the fall of communism. The
patriarch’s incredible speech to the Jewish rabbis in November, 1991 has not
been repented of, membership of the WCC continues as before, and while there
are complaints about Catholic proselytism it looks as if the Pope is going to
visit Russia with the MP’s agreement.
The MP today, amazing to tell, is no less enthusiastically pro-Soviet than the civil government. Priests regularly praise Stalin - and now these panegyrics cannot be excused on the grounds that they are made under duress. The idea that the MP has repented of sergianism is laughable. Consider the patriarch’s latest statement on Metropolitan Sergius’ notorious declaration, on November 9, 2001: “This was a clever step by which Metropolitan Sergius tried to save the church and clergy.”[2]
Tout ça change, tout c’est la
même chose!
The ROCOR leadership knows all this
perfectly well. But it also knows that it is weak, and has therefore come to
the conclusion: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” The leopard, they try and
persuade us, has changed its spots; the tree with an evil root is now bringing
forth good fruits. But as we know from the Holy Scriptures, a leopard cannot
change its spots, and “a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Every tree
that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them…” (Matthew 7.17-19).
In
order to make sure of this point, let us briefly look at fruits of the six most
powerful metropolitans of the MP, one of whom is likely to be the next
patriarch:-
(1) Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Kolomna and Krutitsa was described in 1994 by the OCA Bishop Basil (Rodzianko) of Washington as “not only a scoundrel, but, perhaps, something much worse than that” (testimony of Michael Rodzianko). Sergei Bychkov wrote in 1999 that he “has never served a day in a parish. He knows the problems and needs of the clergy only by hearsay. Although he came up through all the ranks, he spent the most difficult years for the Russian church abroad. He served in Berlin, Jerusalem, Prague, and even in Japan. He headed OVTsS [the Department of External Church Relations] for almost ten years. He thought that he would be elected patriarch in 1990 after the death of Patriarch Pimen. But he did not make it even to the second round. This so upset him that he suffered a heart attack. But after recovering, he reconciled himself to the situation and began to support the rise of Master [Cyril] Gundiaev. Metropolitan Yuvenaly is notorious in church circles for his nontraditional sexual orientation. A number of monasteries in the area around Moscow have already been turned into annexes of Sodom.”
(2) Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk, the friend of Metropolitan Yuvenaly
and head of the Department of External Church Relations, is an extreme
ecumenist and an importer of tobacco and spirits duty-free. Bychkov writes of
him that “until recently he was absolutely certain that after the death of
Patriarch Alexis II he would undoubtedly become primate of the Russian church.
True, events of this year have shaken Master Gundiaev's assurance….
Metropolitan Kirill's tobacco and alcohol scandals have undermined his
authority on the international level. Nevertheless he has held onto his
positions in the synod. He knows very well the weaknesses of members of the
synod and he skillfully manipulates them. This is the great talent of the
metropolitan. His impudence and frankness befuddle weak minds. Synod members
who know about his ties with high places are not about to withstand his
unbearable pressure. His close friendship with Berezovsky also has brought its
fruits; the metropolitan has compromising information not only about all of the
episcopacy but even about the patriarch and he occasionally leaks it to the
press.” According to the witness of an MP priest, Metropolitan Cyril once came
into his church and saw an icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas on the analoy. “Get
the Tsar out of here!”
he said severely!
(3) Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg, another extreme ecumenist
who is in favour of introducing the new calendar into the Russian Church was,
writes Bychkov, “a representative of the Moscow patriarchate at the World
Council of Churches in Geneva. At the end of the 1960s he was patriarchal
exarch of western Europe and served in Berlin. He is notorious for his
aristocratic manners (if he wears cuff links then they must be jeweled).
Emulating Catherine II's favorite Grigory Potemkin, he enjoys fresh oysters
which are brought to him from Paris and London. But his guests are most
affected by his wine cellars. Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan, who replaced him
in Rostov on Don, nearly lost consciousness when he caught sight of and tasted
the wines from the metropolitan's cellars. In the 1970-1980s his career
rise halted and he was shuttled from one episcopal see to another. Patriarch
Pimen was not well disposed toward him. Only after his death did Vladimir come
into favor again. From 1995 he has ruled the St. Petersburg diocese,
thereby becoming a permanent member of the Holy Synod. In Petersburg he
began restoring order with an "iron hand," primarily in financial
matters, overturning traditions that had arisen over decades (oysters are
expensive nowadays). Metropolitan Vladimir's ministry has been constantly
accompanied by scandals. Their causes are his inability and lack of desire to
get along with clergy. His administrative style is authoritarian.”
(4) Metropolitan Methodius of Voronezh was until recently one of the
strongest candidates to succeed the present patriarch. But in 1992 he was described by his colleague,
Archbishop Chrysostom of Vilna, as “a KGB officer, an
atheist, a liar, who is constantly advised by the KGB”. An atheist for
patriarch? All things are possible in the MP!
(5) , (6). Metropolitans Philaret of Minsk and Vladimir of Kiev are both, according to Bychkov, homosexuals who “share one thing in common: under their administrations the largest monasteries--the Kiev caves lavra and the Zhirovitsy monastery--have become examples of Sodom and Gomorra. ‘Gay families’ coexist peacefully in them, concealed by monastic garments.”
Are things any better in the lower ranks?
Well, on July 19, 1999, according to Bychkov, the Synod “devoted much time to the scandals involving the homosexual conduct of two bishops, Nikon Mironov of Ekaterinburg and Gury Shalimov of Korsun. The press devoted so much attention to poor Bishop Nikon that he is notorious throughout Russia. The behaviour of Bishop Gury was just as scandalous. The Holy Synod sent both into retirement, that is, it dismissed them, confirming thereby the justice of the journalistic accusations. But it dismissed them in conditions of strictest secrecy!”[3]
2.
The Leopard and his cubs
Ah, but then there are the wonderfully holy village priests and old women that the supporters of the MP like to talk about! Personally, I have not met any holy priests in the MP. And as for the old women, I know of people who were put off Orthodoxy for years by the appallingly boorish behaviour of the old women in MP churches.
Of course, I may be missing something. But even if I am, what does that prove? What does the presence of good, sincere people in the MP (and I have no doubt that there are many) prove about the MP? No more than the presence of good and sincere people among the Roman Catholics or Protestants about their churches. That is to say: nothing. For is the truth and grace of a Church defined by the quality of some of its junior members, or by the confession of faith of its leaders? The latter, of course…
But the supporters of the MP are very fond of this “bottom-up” ecclesiology of theirs. They love to assert that even if the older generation of bishops are all KGB agents (not even the patriarch denies that he is, and has been for a long time!), the next generation are going to be wonderful.
But why? Why should those appointed by KGB agents, ecumenists and homosexuals be anti-sergianists, anti-ecumenists and irreproachable chaste? Is it not much more likely that they will be at least partially tainted by the vices of their teachers, whom they chose to follow knowing their vices? “Know ye not,” says the Apostle Paul, speaking about precisely such vices, “that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (I Corinthians 5.6).
According to his brother Michael, the OCA Bishop Basil of Washington said, after a trip to Moscow: “Now I agree with you: amongst the young folks there, there are many wonderful Orthodox people,” and, briefly remaining silent, he added, “but it will require yet another entire generation, or perhaps even longer, before everything gets back to normal”. So, if we accept the testimony even of this pro-Moscow witness, the ROCOR bishops should wait at least another generation before thinking of joining the MP.
And yet even this pessimistic estimate seems to me to be unreasonably optimistic. It depends on several assumptions, viz.: (1) that these “wonderful Orthodox people” will remain in the corrupt MP, and will not feel compelled by their conscience to leave it, (2) that the present leaders of the MP will choose to promote precisely these “wonderful Orthodox people” and not corrupt time-servers like themselves, and (3) that even if, by some extraordinary coincidence, some of these “wonderful Orthodox people” are promoted to positions of power in the church, they will still be wonderful and Orthodox by that time, and will not have been corrupted by the terrible environment they find themselves in.
The fact remains that, while a certain degree of regeneration can take place in a Church from below, that regeneration cannot go far, and will in time peter out, until and unless it is supported and strengthened by regeneration from above. For it is a basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology that the faith of a Church is defined by the faith of its hierarchs. And if those hierarchs are heretical, then all those in obedience to them share, to a greater or lesser degree, in their heresy. You cannot be an Orthodox Christian while remaining knowingly under the omophorion of a heretical bishop.
“But no,” said one pious MP layman to me recently. “This is the ecclesiological equivalent of the Filioque heresy! Grace does not come from God and the hierarchs. It comes from God alone! It can bypass the heretical hierarchs and go straight to the people!”
Then there is hope for the Roman Catholics, who don’t have to worry about the heresy of their Pope! And hope for the Protestants, who said all along that the hierarchy and the priesthood were unnecessary! And hope for all those “Orthodox” individualists (and there are very many of them) who construct their spiritual lives independently of the church organization to which they belong, justifying themselves on the grounds that they have a direct line to God that does not pass through the hierarch’s office!
Yes, we do have a direct line to God. And God can certainly give grace to a believer directly, independently of any hierarch or priest. But nobody can receive the grace of baptism, or of chrismation, or of the Body and Blood of Christ, without which salvation is impossible, except at the hands of a canonically appointed and rightly believing priest. That is the order God has ordained. And He has also ordained that this channel of sacramental grace does not pass through the hands of heretics or those who represent them…
3. The Leopard and his tamer
Another, not dissimilar argument that is sometimes heard is that the rapid building of churches and monasteries in contemporary Russia shows that, whatever the defects of the leaders, the resurrection of Russia is taking place, and that, this being the case, instead of standing aside and carping, it is necessary to have a more positive attitude, to join in the renewal process. And that involves entering into communion. After all, they assert, perhaps we (the ROCOR hierarchs) can have a good influence on the hierarchy, perhaps we can put a brake on the negative aspects of patriarchal life, perhaps we can help to tame the leopard…
It is difficult to believe that anyone actually believes this argument. As Nicholas Kazantsev has recently pointed out, the ROCOR has acted as a brake on the MP only so long as it has existed outside the MP as a genuinely independent force.[4] Once the tiny ROCOR pond has been poured into the MP ocean, it will cease to have any influence at all.
As it is, such influence as it has had has been rapidly declining in recent years in exact proportion to its rapprochement with the patriarchate. Surveys show that the influence of the ROCOR was at its greatest immediately after the fall of communism, in the early 1990s, when the ROCOR actually fought against the MP and the MP was seriously rattled. But then came the 1994 conciliar decision to enter into negotiations with the MP, the expulsion of the Suzdal dissenters in 1995, and Archbishop Mark’s meeting with the patriarch in 1997, as a direct result of which the MP felt emboldened to seize Hebron and Jericho, and the Oak of Abraham at Hebron died after four thousand years of life…
No, the leopard has not been tamed, and it will not be tamed by the ROCOR, in whatever form it may continue to exist after the unia with the MP…
There are in fact strong grounds for believing in a future resurrection of the Russian Church. These strong grounds consist in the prophecies of the saints, which speak precisely about such a resurrection. But it is important to note that these prophecies do not state that the MP will gradually evolve into the True Church – that is, that good fruit will gradually begin to appear on the corrupt tree, transforming the tree from bad to good, from corrupt to life-giving. On the contrary, St. Seraphim of Sarov says that at that time “the Russian hierarchs will become so impious that they will not even believe in the most important dogma of the Faith of Christ – the resurrection of Christ and the general resurrection. That is why it will be pleasing to the Lord God to take me from this very temporary life for a time and then, for the establishment of the dogma of the resurrection, to raise me, and my resurrection will be like the resurrection of the seven youths in the cave of Okhlon…”
And then, continues the saint, he will begin the process of world-wide repentance; for the absolutely necessary condition of true resurrection is repentance.
The prophecies speak, not of an evolution of the MP from evil to good, nor of the repentance of the bishops, but of a more or less complete removal of the higher clergy of the Church. The initiative for this will not come from well-known bishops, but from people unknown to the world, according to Elder Porphyrius of Glinsk (+1868): "In due course, faith will collapse in Russia. The brilliance of earthly glory will blind the mind. The word of truth will be defiled, but with regard to the Faith, some from among the people, unknown to the world, will come forward and restore what was scorned."
And the instrument of this restoration will be a True Orthodox Tsar. Thus Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, passing on the tradition of the Valaam elders, wrote: “... The Lord will have mercy on Russia for the sake of the small remnant of true believers. In Russia, the elders said, in accordance with the will of the people, the Monarchy, Autocratic power, will be re-established. The Lord has forechosen the future Tsar. He will be a man of fiery faith, having the mind of a genius and a will of iron. First of all he will introduce order in the Orthodox Church, removing all the untrue, heretical and lukewarm hierarchs. And many, very many - with few exceptions, all - will be deposed, and new, true, unshakeable hierarchs will take their place. He will be of the family of the Romanovs according to the female line. Russia will be a powerful state, but only for 'a short time'... And then the Antichrist will come into the world, with all the horrors of the end as described in the Apocalypse."
As for the lower ranks, Catacomb Eldress Agatha of Belorussia, who was martyred by the Bolsheviks at the age of 119 (!), counselled them not to go to the MP: "This is not a true church. It has signed a contract to serve the Antichrist. Do not go to it. Do not receive any mysteries from its servants. Do not participate in prayer with them.” They were to wait for the triumph of Orthodoxy, when the people will show their true repentance by being baptised by True Orthodox clergy: There will come a time when churches will be opened in Russia, and the true Orthodox faith will triumph. Then people will become baptized, as at one time they were baptized under St. Vladimir.”
4. The Leopard as a protected species
When Putin met the ROCOR hierarchs in New York, he used the argument that the ROCOR should join with the MP in “serving the homeland”, its culture and traditions. This is a powerful emotional argument for Russians and those who love Russia. After all, who would not want to serve his homeland? Who would want to appear unpatriotic? And especially now that the homeland is beginning to take on the appearance, externally at any rate, of an Orthodox country, and Orthodoxy is being protected by the State as an inalienable part of the national culture of Russia.
But what is the ultimate value here – the State or the Church, the earthly homeland or the Heavenly Homeland, God or Mammon? If Orthodoxy is to be protected because it serves the Homeland, or the State, or culture, or any other value whatsoever apart from eternal salvation with God, then it is no longer Orthodoxy but at best an exhibit in a museum or a zoo, at worst an idol.
In early, Kievan and Muscovite Russia, the Church was protected, not because it helped to support the State (although it did do that), and not because it constituted a part of Russia’s cultural heritage (although it was that), but because the State of Russia and Russia as a whole existed in order to serve the Church, without which neither the State nor the Nation had more than an ephemeral significance. The earthly homeland, in Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow’s phrase, was the “antechamber” of the Heavenly Homeland. Membership of the earthly homeland was treasured and was fought for because it served as a stepping-stone to membership of the Heavenly Homeland, the Kingdom of Heaven – and for no other reason.
Russia was “Holy Russia” precisely because she served something higher than herself, the ideal of holiness, the ideal of union in faith and love with God. And she began to descend to the far lesser ideal of “Great Russia” under Peter the Great only when she began to serve herself rather than God, when the Church became a tool in the hands of the State, serving the State’s this-worldly aims. However, under the later Romanov Tsars the great ship that was Russia began to return to her heavenly calling, to become holy again. This process accelerated under Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, who led Russia into World War I, not for the sake of her and his greater earthly glory, but to save Orthodoxy in her sister-nation of Serbia. And when the Tsar abdicated, dooming himself and his family to ignominy and death, he did so in order that this war-effort should continue – in other words, for the sake of Orthodoxy in the true sense.
But in today’s Russia, as Protopriest Lev Lebedev writes, “the ideological idol under the name of ‘fatherland’ (‘Russia’, ‘the state’) has been completely preserved. We have already many times noted that these concepts are, in essence, pagan ideological idols not because they are in themselves bad, but because they have been torn out from the trinitarian unity of co-subjected concepts: Faith, Tsar, Fatherland (Orthodoxy, Autocracy, People)… Everything that one might wish to be recognized and positive, even the regeneration of the faith, is done under the slogan of ‘the regeneration of the Fatherland (Russia)’! But nothing is being regenerated. Even among the monarchists the regeneration of the Orthodox Autocratic Monarchy is mainly represented as no more than the means for the regeneration of the Fatherland. We may note that if any of the constituent parts of the triad – Orthodoxy, Autocracy, People – is torn away from the others and becomes the only one, it loses its power. Only together and in the indicated hierarchical order did they constitute, and do they constitute now, the spiritual (and all the other) strength and significance of Great Russia. But for the time being it is the ideological idol ‘fatherland’ that holds sway…”[5]
If the ROCOR wishes to serve the Fatherland, she must wait for the true Fatherland to appear above the horizon, like the submerged city of Kitezh. To embrace the semi-Soviet, pseudo-Orthodox Fatherland that is Putin’s Russia would be a betrayal of her calling, a betrayal of the true Russia.
There is still time to draw back!
November
4/17, 2003.
[1] Nicholas Kazantsev, “Nel’zia ob’edinit’sa s patriarkhiej!”, Nasha Strana, ¹ 2739, 1 November, 2003.
[2] http://www.ripnet.org/besieged/rparocora.htm?
[3] Bychkov, “The Synod against a Council”, Moskovskii komsomolets, August 20, 1999, quoted by Joseph Legrande, “Re: [paradosis] Re: Solovki (WAS: Dealing with Heresy)”, orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com, 31 August, 2002.
[4] Kazantsev, op. cit.
[5] Lebedev, Velikorossia, St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 655.